in article tqp6j0d27lou0a014hg87qb4358sjcm8ob@4ax.com, E. Barry Bruyea at
spring@fever.ca wrote on 8/30/04 10:47 AM:

> On Mon, 30 Aug 2004 16:34:00 GMT, catchmerevisited
> <catchmerevisited2004@yahoo.ca> wrote:
>

>> in article KwFYc.2491$H23.24067@newscontent-01.sprint.ca, notritenoteri at
>> coldasfire@hades.com wrote on 8/30/04 5:59 AM:
>>

>>> SO what's your point? you don't like success? you don't like raw unbridled
>>> capitalism at its best? You're unhappy because apple was naive, stupid or
>>> greedy? All of the foregoing?
>>> First off they thought people would pay more for a superior product.
>>> That was true for a very limited segment of the population. Most people like
>>> cheap, Henry Ford proved that and its been proved by other successful
>>> marketers such as Wal-Mart and McDonalds. Second they were stupid they
>>> wouldn't license the product. They thought the money was in the hardware,
>>> which it isn't. The only guys that make real money in hardware are near
>>> monopolies like Intel.

>>
>> Since Apple HAS for a time, experimented with licencing their O/S, they
>> found it didn't work for them.
>> Truth be told, computers just work better when sold as a closed system,
>> eschewing the poor performance of third party vendors whose claims of
>> 'compatibility' are often dubious.

>
> The "IBM" PC sold millions because it wasn't a closed system,
> regardless of performance. The Apple initial success was just that,
> initial. If they'd 'opened the door' they may very well have buried
> the "IBM" compatible computer.
>

>> And consider too, Sony's various proprietary schemes for products they
>> developed over the years, and continue to. No one dares to suggest that Sony
>> is doing poorly, eh?

>
> Sony's "Betamax" was buried by the VHS format because of Sony's
> 'greed' in licensing. If they had it do over............

they would have skipped BetaMax and gone straight to MiniDisk�?

>

in article NMKYc.2541$H23.24563@newscontent-01.sprint.ca, notritenoteri at
coldasfire@hades.com wrote on 8/30/04 11:57 AM:

> I'm not so sure about Sony. What's happened to its shares? The same with
> Apple. There is a difference between OK and filthy stinking rich.

the diference between Sony and Apple, and that of their competitors, is that
the former represents better quality and innovation, whereas their
competitors represent vultures imitating their products and mass-marketing
upon an unsuspecting public iso a 'deal'.

better quality and innovation are all very nice words but the reality is
whatever sells with the best margin is where the money is made. Business is
not about being the nicest guy on the block or doing the right thing or
being respected as a good guy its about making money as fast and as much as
possible. If quality and innovation are what it takes you go that route if
cheap shoddy and large margins are where its at that is the route to follow.
If a seller can convince a buyer that there is snob appeal to its product
that's where the stupid consumer comes in. If a real Cartier watch costs
4000 and a "specially priced deal by mail" Cartier costs 3 easy payments of
19.95 the buyer has to either be just plain stupid if he thinks he's getting
the real thing or be prepared to settle for a knock-off that may or may not
function as the real thing will. The question of whether or not the watch is
worth 4000 is another issue entirely.

"catchmerevisited" <catchmerevisited2004@yahoo.ca> wrote in message
news:BD5912D7.D7BC%catchmerevisited2004@yahoo.ca.. .

> in article NMKYc.2541$H23.24563@newscontent-01.sprint.ca, notritenoteri at
> coldasfire@hades.com wrote on 8/30/04 11:57 AM:
>

> > I'm not so sure about Sony. What's happened to its shares? The same with
> > Apple. There is a difference between OK and filthy stinking rich.

>
> the diference between Sony and Apple, and that of their competitors, is

that

> the former represents better quality and innovation, whereas their
> competitors represent vultures imitating their products and mass-marketing
> upon an unsuspecting public iso a 'deal'.
>